147 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Merced652 wrote...

TRUTHMACHINE wrote...

Check out skyrim or witcher2. both WILL be better then DA2

neither of them are really crpgs, but they will be good, well comparitively speaking anyway. 

Everyone has their own subjective view of what defines a CRPG. It would be nice if Skyrim has deep story elements but I'll likely be playing it for it's amusing strong points of detailed environments, exploration of a fully 3D environment, deep character customization and skill system and the improved Radiant AI system. Tossing coins between beggars and making them fight sounds fun. dragon attacks on towns sound amusing to watch as well. I'm looking forward mostly to simple escapist activities like pickpocketing nobles or hunting for deer in the forest with a bow. It may just be boring sandbox stuff to some people but it looks fun to me and it fits my deffinition of a CRPG. There is always room to improve any game upon, but it hasn't been released yet so we won't know till November.

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Correct. DnD rules define RPG gaming.

Can't...stop...laughing...

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry, myself. I guess laughing wins out, but I'm still sad that after so many years and so many better systems, we still hear stuff like that.

Edit: though of the OP's 10 point checklist, most aren't relevant to the ruleset anyway. I figure only 3, 5, and 7.

Possibly 8 too. Though having D&D rules isn't sufficient to make a game require resource management (see, for example, NWN1), it might be a necessary condition. Very few RPG rulesets are designed around long dungeon crawls.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 avril 2011 - 08:39 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Even if Bio drops hte ball completely, there will be other developers.

There's a few russian RGPs I heard of (but not tried yet)
You got Drakensang (+ River of Time), which is as old-school as it gets and it's awesome.

[McHoger]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Even if Bio drops hte ball completely, there will be other developers.

There's a few russian RGPs I heard of (but not tried yet)
You got Drakensang (+ River of Time), which is as old-school as it gets and it's awesome.

It's a shame Radon Labs went under after Drakensang 2.

[FedericoV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You got Drakensang (+ River of Time), which is as old-school as it gets and it's awesome.

And it's been so profitable that it will became a MMO.

[Xaltar81]

The RPG market is almost impossible to cater for, the sheer number of views as to what constitutes an RPG means that no matter what direction you take there will always be people who felt you made a mistake. Still, DA2 failed in almost all the areas that make for a "good" RPG, note I did not say DA2 is not an RPG. By many definitions DA2 as well as Bethesda's titles are RPGs. What the OP was asking is not " will real RPGs be made again?" but rather "will classic western RPGs ever be made again". While I don't agree with a number of his points there, most are in line with what I feel is needed in a good western RPG.

To my mind a good RPG requires the following:

1. Solid, well built, interactive NPCs and companions that can be influenced by your interactions with them
2. Strong focus on a narrative that is engaging, well written and is subject to the choices of the player in as many ways as is possible.
3. Immersive conversations and quests that help the player relate to thier character and feel as though they have an investment in the character they have created.
4. Combat that actually fits into the storyline rather than seeming to have been thrown in there simply to avert bordom and has no real reason for occuring at all. I have always felt that combat is a tool to enhance the RPG elements of the game rather than the focus of a game. If you play a game purely for the combat then you would be better served playing an MMO or an FPS. More on combat in point 8.
5. Customisation to a point where the player can feel as though they have created a unique character for themselves as well as the ability to shape the appearance and stats of your companions via armor and weapon choices.
6. As the OP said, sensible use of your stats whereby strengh affects what one would assume it should as well as said stats having an effect on the interactions you have with the world and its NPCs. It can be simplified a little whereby a high strength check for example may give you a higher intimidation check but such simplifications must make sense.
7. Consiquence, this is probably one of the largest and most important elements often left out of modern RPGs. There must be consiquences for your actions both good and bad that effect the story and your ability to complete quests.
8. Tactical combat that involves more than simply "outgearing" the encounter or button smashing. If you want a good example of how RPG combat should be executed just take a look at some of the Raid encounters in World of Warcraft. While it need not be as complex it should be along similar lines at the very least for boss encounters. Running backwards and staying out of reach of the boss that hits for 3/4 of your health is not good tactics, its a cop out.

To me those are the key elements of an RPG that I would enjoy. I am not overly concerned about inventory, simple or complex really makes no difference so long as it makes sense. Combat to me has always been a crutch that far too many devs lean on, it should never be the focus of an RPG. That is not to say that I feel RPGs shouldn't be combat intensive, only that the combat should be derived from the story not simply there because gamers like combat. I am all for testing out my shiny new greatsword +2 but I want it to be in a way where I need to find a quest that will allow me to do so, not simply walk into a dark street and be randomly attacked by generic spawned mobs. Random combat encounters are great if used right, like along a road where merchants are known to travel, or in the docks at night where you may stumble onto smuglers etc but there should always be a plauseable reason for it and where possible a way to diplomaticly, or through other means, avoid conflict. I think people often overcomplicate the definition of role playing, to me, all it is is creating an interactive world where the player feels as though they could be thier character and that thier choices and interactions have impact on that world. What I have listed above is what is necessary for me to make such an attachment to my character, it does not define what an RPG is or should be but rather what I want to see in my CRPGs.

[graavigala85]

 We will. We just have to look it from some other place rather than Bioware. They cant do it anymore

[xkg]

Xaltar81 wrote...

1. Solid, well built, interactive NPCs and companions that can be influenced by your interactions with them

8. Tactical combat that involves more than simply "outgearing" the encounter or button smashing. If you want a good example of how RPG combat should be executed just take a look at some of the Raid encounters in World of Warcraft. While it need not be as complex it should be along similar lines at the very least for boss encounters. Running backwards and staying out of reach of the boss that hits for 3/4 of your health is not good tactics, its a cop out.

1. Good RPG doesnt need any companions at all to be called "good". You are ROLE PLAYING - that means it can be single hero role and doesnt have to be whole group leader

8. No thank you. Thats what we exactly have already in DA2. WOW Boss fights and it is worst thing ever.
Bashing 10000 hp Boss for 30 minutes dealing with countles waves of his minions isnt fun at all.

Modifié par xkg, 13 avril 2011 - 09:19 .

[Xaltar81]

@xkg:
As I said, more than once, that is what I personaly want to see in my RPGs. I have never, not once not ever enjoyed a game with a single hero role and no companions. To me that point is a deal breaker. Obviously that is not true of everyone. As for the combat, I was meaning for boss fights and other key battles, I hate pure hack and slash but again, thats just me. As to DA2 having tactical combat, hahahahahahahaha..... not. DA2 used the typical approach of the fight is just hard enough to force you to think a little and use your abilities. there was absolutely 0 need to try and find a strategic point to place your ranged companion, or to have your healer or mage dispel harmful effects on your tank etc. You could do it, but it wasn't "needed". A proper boss fight should be easy if you get the tactics right, almost impossible if not. DA2s fights were simply of the variety of almost impossible untill you figure out your mage can run rings around it and not get hit.

I used WoW boss fights as an example of tactics or wipe, I did not say that I wanted to spend 3 hours watching tactics vids on youtube for my RPG. WoW have it right but its over the top for an RPG, a simpler version of WoW raid boss fights would more than suffice and these should always be beatable without tactics in casual mode.

[Lotion Soronarr]

McHoger wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Even if Bio drops hte ball completely, there will be other developers.

There's a few russian RGPs I heard of (but not tried yet)
You got Drakensang (+ River of Time), which is as old-school as it gets and it's awesome.

It's a shame Radon Labs went under after Drakensang 2.

:crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

[xkg]

@Xaltar81:

If you realy like cRPG and first person camera perspective view doeasnt bother you + you like twisted and realy fun story give Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines a try if u havent already. Mind you it is no-companion solo player type of game.


But if you realy cant stand solo playing try Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption - in this game you can have companions (still 3d game but graphics is little bit old here) .


Both those games are based on Real Pen&Paper RPG system.

Modifié par xkg, 13 avril 2011 - 09:36 .

[Xaltar81]

Yup, I have them both and for Bloodlines I have the companion mod developed by a friend of mine. Bloodlines I suppose I could add to the list of games I enjoyed and it was single role hero so I retract

I have never, not once not ever enjoyed a game with a single hero role and no companions

I actually play White Wolf OWoD with my wife and we have evolved the system into many different genres including fantasy. I am a hardcore RPG fan, both on PC and pen and paper.

[Bostur]

wowpwnslol wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

What is your definition of an RPG?

It seems to be quite different than my understanding of what a role-playing game is.

Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale series. Planescape: Torment. NWN: Hordes of the Underdark (+many user created modules), NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer. Dragon Age Origins (despite its many faults).

But not "Bard's Tale" or "Pool of Radiance"?

Oh I forgot they have a first person perspective so they must be shooters


http://upload.wikime..._Bards_Tale.png

http://upload.wikime...ance_panels.png


How classic is classic? "Rogue" purists may claim that anything made after 1980 wouldn't qualify as an RPG.

In defense of FO3 and FO:NV to me they feel a lot like FO1 and FO2. And a lot more like RPGs than DA2. Its true that the tactical options are limited, but that was the case with the first games as well. I contribute that to the small party size and the preference of ranged weapons. With ranged weapons position often feels like a one-dimensional scale where range matters more than compass direction.

Modifié par Bostur, 13 avril 2011 - 10:06 .

[kinna]

wowpwnslol wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I assume anything that's close to classic PnP/D&D style. While that's absolutely fine, those other games are still RPGs, even if they don't meet that standard. 

Correct. DnD rules define RPG gaming.

Wrong

[JabbaDaHutt30]

wowpwnslol wrote...

JRPG's can't be classified as RPGs - to do otherwise would be an insult to the genre. They have almost none of the elements that make an RPG what it is. Interactive movies are what those games are.

shut up.

[AlanC9]

Wow.... that was amazingly arrogant. (Not you, Jabba -- him)

[Joshua Hawkeye]

[quote]wowpwnslol wrote...

1) A game with multiple dialogue options, not the lame "dialogue wheel" copied from that platform shooter mass effect

[/quote]

A dialog wheel that provides... multiple dialogue options!
(And what is a... platform shooter? Is it like super mario with guns? Can't say I ever saw ME come close to that...)

[quote]

2) A game that is actually difficult, not by virtue of monsters having a billion HP and absurd damage, spawning in waves out of nowhere, but by having smart AI, interesting abilities and responding to player's tactics.

[/quote]

I can't actually think of any RPG which did everything you described (especially the smart AI that responds to player tactcs). You'd probably be looking for stuff like Starcraft 2 and the like.  Or turn based stratagy games.

[quote]
3) Stats that are incorporated into RPing - like STR being used for smashing doors/locks or intimidation, Charisma for persuasion, intellect for solving puzzles, dexterity for avoiding traps etc?
[/quote]
Neverwinter Nights 2 is still fairly recent... Can't think of anything else at the top of my hat that incorparates all that. Except PS:T, but that is an old one.

[quote]
4) A LONG single player campaign with epic storyline, atmosphere, lots of interesting locations and properly developed companions. Story where choices you make MATTER and impact the game world in a meaningful way.
[/quote]
The WItcher! Seriously, it's the only game that actually incorperated those choices-which-mattered. And Mass Effect, although the world was not very impacted and you have to wait 'till the next sequel to see the changes.

[quote]
5) A proper inventory system with plenty of junk items that so upsets the "casual" gamer.
[/quote]
Mass Effect 1! Fallout 3 / New Vegas!

[quote]
6) A game that rewards, tactical thinking and not spamming buttons in order for "something cool to happen"
[/quote]

That would be just about any RPG released recently. I can't speak for DA2 (not played it yet), but Mass Effect 2 actually had that. In fact, any game except some corridor shooters would apply.

[quote]
7) A freedom of stat/gear customization to build your character how you want without fear to confuse "casuals"
[/quote]

Mass Eff--- Wait. You didn't tlike that one. Witcher has some quite good stat costumization, but not impressive in terms of gear. There's the upcoming Deus Ex, too.

[quote]
8) Some frustrating elements to actually feel good when you accomplish something and not being handed everything on a silver platter, because the former option is not "fun" - no more healing to full instantly after every battle, make health potions limited in supply etc...
[/quote]

Frustrating elements just sounds bad. Today it's called more focus on 'survival'. THe hardcore mode of F:NV allowed you to do so, for example. 

[quote]
9) Freedom to do things that might have irreversible consequences (such as killing crucial NPC or pissing off entire town, if you do something stupid)
[/quote]

I do not recall any game released ever which allowed you to kill crucial NPC's, because simply it would break the storyline (Except STALKER, where it would not, but that is not an RPG). Not even Deus Ex allowed you to do so. Pissing of entire towns however... plenty of free roam games allow you to do that.

[quote]
10) A game not available for consoles
[/quote]
What's that got to do with anything? You are bassicly just crippliing yourself with choices for no good reason here.

---

If you truly want to see a classic RPG, then go play one of those classic RPG's that have been around for years. Although I am quite sure that none of the classic RPG's you mean (Baldur's Gate and all that) actually fit the descriptions you gave above. There are plenty of mods and stuff out there for those games that allow you to freshen the experience, and games like Neverwinter Nights (2) allow you to play on endlessly.

[/quote]

[AbounI]

I can suggest all of you to check "Age Of Decadence" by Iron Tower if you are interested with an old school RPG (work still in progress, but at least we can download a short demo with a combat gameplay).

Hope this project won't be cancelled.

Modifié par AbounI, 13 avril 2011 - 11:43 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AbounI wrote...

I can suggest all of you to check "Age Of Decadence" by Iron Tower if you are interested with an old school RPG (work still in progress, but at least we can download a short demo with a combat gameplay).

Hope this project won't be cancelled.

Age of Decadence. Release date: next Thursday. Lol.

But yeah, it looks very promising. I'm also hoping that it doesn't get cancelled.

+ Vince seems like a pretty cool guy. He knows RPGs and doesnt afraid of anything.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 13 avril 2011 - 11:53 .

[xkg]

wowpwnslol wrote...

JRPG's can't be classified as RPGs - to do otherwise would be an insult to the genre. They have almost none of the elements that make an RPG what it is. Interactive movies are what those games are.

You know what ? :

cRPG is RPG version ported to to computer/console whatever

cRPG divide into WRPG (Western RPG) and JRPG (Japanese RPG)

There must be some reason those guys who defined it used "RPG" part while naming that subgenre "JRPG"

what you are trying here is to make whole new definition for cRPG gaming and i must say you are doing it pretty poorly

Modifié par xkg, 13 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[Tommy6860]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Your right Tommy, I haven't played those games as they are not released yet. But, I do follow those games through the development stages. I have participated in those forums. So I have a good general idea of what to expect from those games. And they are probably the closest games to the "classic" RPG that you are going to find this year.

I have been following it myself, but I haven't of late as I want to have something to surprise me, considering the RPG fare that has been coming around lately that mostly doesn't fit my taste. Anyway, I saw you mentioned "Dead State", and I thought of Amnesia: The Dark Descent". Have you tried that yet? It isn't an RPG perse, but it is one damn scary horror game. I actually had to stop a few times playing it it was that unnerving at times.

[Paulina]

I agree it will be difficult to expect a hardcore RPG from a commercial developer.
However, I do not agree that The Witcher is close to an ideal RPG. I am a woman, I need a character that I can role-play, and in The Witcher I can't choose a female! And I really don't feel well when role-playing a man. I just can't do it. I immediately lose any interest in the game. So for me, The Witcher is missing the core of RPG- chosing the gender.

For different developers, I have different expectations. For a continuation of DAO I expected in fact a continuation (which I won't get, as I see). From TES series I expect numerous bugs and a freedom of choice where to go.

My ideal RPG used to be Wizardry series and Nehrim (released 2010). Ironically, I didn't even pay a penny for Nehrin. It is released for free for everyone.
As for Nehrim:
1. Great, really overwhelming story ( one of the best I've seen in RPGs, and to make thing clear, I wasn't that fascinated by Origins story, to be honest, it was quite predictable).
2. About 40-50h of the Main Quest (world exploration takes much more).
3. Not released for consoles.
4. Still moddable.
5. Huge world, with numerous locations, almost each dungeon is different.
6. Lots of items to collect ( no damn JUNK!), armor sets, weapons.
7. One companion. Nothing special, but a little likeable.
8. I can play as a female !
9. No fast travel.
But Nehrim is not for everyone. No quest markers to every quest. In some quest you actually have to think. Nehrim is like Morrowind with great main quest.

[Xaltar81]

The OP is clearly still in the anger phase. Give him time to cool off and stop trying to fuel his rage. As I said in an earlier post, there is no clear cut way to define a cRPG, there are so many different ideas out there about what should and should not be in a cRPG. DA2 failed on many levels, for some these failures could be overlooked for others they could not, again, back to the many different views comment. The goal of DA3 should not be to revert to DA:O or to stick with DA2 it should be to find the common ground between the 2 different factions I see about and make a game that has something for both. DA2 made the huge mistake of almost completely alienating one side of the DA fan base while giving the others side almost everything it asked for. We can't in fairness blame them for doing it because most of us did not stand up for what we liked in DA:O when it was bashed by people who didn't like it. Its fairly easy to see why EA/Bioware could think that what they did to DA2 was improving the franchise for everyone. No one said anything when people cried for voiced protaganists or a simpler dialogue system or less padding. Where DA2 did fail hugely in my opinion was the choice in the style of the story. Retrospective story telling makes giving the player any real sense of controll over the story outcome impossible and as a result leaves you feeling like you just played a really long, really boring, interactive movie.

edit: Thanks for the heads up Paulina, I will give Nehrim a look

Modifié par Xaltar81, 13 avril 2011 - 12:21 .

[SexBomb]

wowpwnslol wrote...

10) A game not available for consoles

What's wrong with console versions?

I hear a lot of PC gamers talking about this these days, but I just don't understand.

Most gamers these days are console gamers.  If large companies did not market to these consumers, they would be missing out on a magnificent financial/publicity opportunity.  Less money for the company means poorer quality in games (although Bioware's most recent example turned out to be an unfortunate mess; that's not always the case).  Even the Witcher 2 is going to be adapted for consoles, despite the original being for PC only.

I own a gaming PC, an xbox 360 and a ps3, and while I thoroughly prefer PC gaming, I do love my consoles.  Yes, I originally played DAO on my xbox, and once I got the PC version, decided I could never go back.  But I also have a friend who can't stand the PC version.  She prefers the more casual gameplay presented in the console version.

What makes PC gaming so much more "advanced," or "better" than console gaming?  Its just two different ways of engaging in the same story.

Modifié par Thats-Your-Funeral, 13 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[G00N3R7883]

@OP

Some good points with the exception of #10 which has no relevance to the quality of a game unless we're talking about poor quality ports.

I'd love to see a "classic" RPG, but I doubt we'll ever get one. Its a shame certain things have been stripped out and "dumbed down" to appeal to more "casual" gamers (apologies to anyone who doesn't like that term but I don't know how else to describe it). I wish Bioware would do a new game with proper D&D rules and all the most complicated elements of Baldurs Gate / Neverwinter Nights and instead of making things "easy" and "simple", find a way to educate new players. Don't make your game dumber, make your players smarter.

I remember my first time on Baldurs Gate I made a total screw up of creating my character and I was getting owned by everything (even Kobolds!) . This was my first experience of D&D rules and it was in the days before I could just jump on an internet forum for help. But I didn't give up and eventually managed to create a character that suited my play style on something like my fourth attempt. Problem is, nobody would do that now. Getting owned in the first hour? Waaah game sucks, play something else.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 13 avril 2011 - 12:45 .